No Surprises in Retro Guidelines Sentence Reductions, 3rd Circuit says – Update for August 26, 2025

We post news and comment on federal criminal justice issues, focused primarily on trial and post-conviction matters, legislative initiatives, and sentencing issues.

3^RD SAYS DUE PROCESS APPLIES TO RETROACTIVE GUIDELINE SENTENCE REDUCTIONS

Paul Harmon pled guilty in 2021 to one count of wire fraud. After the retroactive zero-point Guideline 4C1.1 – that let people with no criminal history points who met other requirements earn an extra two levels off their Guidelines offense score – Paul filed a motion under 18 USC 3582(c)(2) for a sentence reduction.

One of the requirements to qualify for the zero-point reduction is that the prisoner cannot have caused substantial financial hardship to any victims. because of a new, retroactive section of the Sentencing Guidelines, USSG 4C1.1.  The District Court, relying on a victim impact statement from the initial sentencing, denied the motion on the ground that Paul had caused substantial financial hardship to his victims. The judge offered Paul no chance to challenge the victim statement at the sentence-reduction stage.

Paul appealed, arguing that the district court’s reliance on the victim statement without giving him a chance to challenge it violated his due process rights.

The 3^rd Circuit held that USSG 6A1.3(a), which outlines due process protections for sentencing, also applies to the consideration of motions for sentence reduction under 18 USC 3582(c)(2). The Circuit ruled that defendants have a due process right not to be sentenced based on invalid premises or inaccurate information. While defendants have fewer rights in sentence-reduction proceedings than at initial sentencings, basic due process protections still apply where the information is “new.”

Information is “new,” the 3^rd ruled, when it is relied on for the first time to find material facts. This definition ensures defendants have an opportunity to contest information when it matters under the law. But in Paul’s case, the victim impact statement was not “new information” because Paul knew of it at sentencing, where it was relevant to the § 3553(a) sentencing factors, and he had reason and opportunity to dispute it.

The 3^rd Circuit noted that the 5^th, 7^th, 8^th and 11^th Circuits agree with it, but the 9^th has held that USSG 6A1.3(a) does not apply on sentence reduction motions.

United States v. Harmon, Case No. 24-2057, 2025 U.S.App. LEXIS 20655 (3d Cir, Aug 14, 2025)

~ Thomas L. Root